Monthly Archives: July 2008

Throughout U.S. history, the American people have balanced liberty and security. Finding the right mix isn’t always easy. But policy-makers must never forget that they are duty-bound to protect a free society.

Government had ample powers before 9/11 to deal with terrorism in a manner consistent with the Bill of Rights. If we needlessly sacrifice the liberties that make America great, we, in the manner of Esau, will have sold our national soul for a mess of pottage.

Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party’s presidential candidate, is petitioning Congress to STOP abusing the Bill of Rights.Â Here’s the text: Petition to the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary, Congressman Conyers, Chairman Whereas, the basis for the laws of this great Republic is the Constitution, adopted September 17th, 1789; and, Whereas, that Constitution…

Easier said, but it can be done.Â It starts with the new CEO of the Federal Government, the President, telling all those who work for the Executive Branch there will be no more hiring, except for the military.Â That means when people die or retire, they will not be replaced by anyone from the outside.Â If necessary to replace them, it will be from people already working in other departments of the government, like musical chairs.Â That is when you will see impending shrinkage of the bureaucracy.

In addition to that, you eliminate the Cabinet Departments by telling them they may neither hire nor replace at all, ever again, for certain, and if done, heads will roll. Each Cabinet chief comes into the administration for the sole purpose of eliminating the department in, say, four years.Â The result is departments will ultimately disappear and have to share necessary functions, if there are any, with the states until they are out of the loop.Â This is kind of a Tenth Amendment thing, gradually accomplished by deaths and retirements, and no replacement of those working in the Departments.

Statement before the US House of Representatives on HR 3221 July 24, 2008

Madam Speaker,

For several years, followers of the Austrian school of economics have warned that unless Congress moved to end the implicit government guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and took other steps to disengage the US Government from the housing market, America would face a crisis in housing.

This crisis would force Congress to choose between authorizing a taxpayer bailout of Fannie and Freddie, and other measures increasing governmentâ€™s involvement in housing, or restoring a free-market in housing by ending government support for Fannie and Freddie and repealing all laws that interfere in housing. The bursting of the housing bubble, and the recent near-collapse in investor support for Fannie and Freddie has proven my fellow Austrians correct.

Mr. Chairman and distinguished Members of this Committee, on which I was privileged to serve throughout my eight years as a Member of the House of Representatives, it is an honor to appear today to speak on the importance of the separation of powers in the federal government as a tool for protecting the peopleâ€™s liberties. Many vital issues confront our nation, but few are more important than repairing and maintaining the constitutional bulwarks that guarantee individual liberty and limit government power.

Mr. Chairman, today I appear as a private citizen, and also as a former Member of this Committee and as a once-again practicing attorney. I am also honored to be serving as the presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party.

It is axiomatic that no matter how much power government has, it always wants more. While the executive branch under George W. Bush has taken this truism to new heights, it is not unique in its quest for power. Unfortunately, the other branches of government have failed to do enough to maintain the constitutional balance. Particularly disturbing has been Congressâ€™ recent reluctance, in the face of aggressive executive branch claims, to make the laws and ensure that the laws are properly applied. This failure has inhibited the operation of the separation of powers, necessary to provide the checks and balances which undergird our system of constitutional liberty.

It is a project long overdue. We know how America runs best, when it worked best and what levels of government are most appropriate. We just need to back up and pare down. I do not know anyone who thinks the Post Office mentality operates any organization better than free people do.

We know our Declaration of Independence qualifies the role of free people and their government, and we know our Federal Constitution, as originally put forth, helped shape the way America functioned organizationally. If that is so, then we need only move back to a time when everything was best. America proved best for all people when compared to all other styles and forms of civil organization.

The Latin term â€œfiatâ€ roughly translates to â€œthere shall beâ€. When we refer to fiat money, we are referring to money that exists because the government declares it into existence. It is not based on production or earnings, and not backed by any commodity. It is solely based on trusting the government.

Fiat money is exchanged in the economy as long as there is faith in the government that issues it.

A few days ago, July 14th to be exact, was the anniversary of President John Adams signing the Sedition Act into law.Â July 14, 1798 was not a good day for this country.

At the time, the two major political parties were the Federalists (led by John Adams and Alexander Hamilton) and the Democratic-Republicans (led by Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr – who actually killed Hamilton in a duel!).

The Sedition act was an effort, in practice, to silence opposition press and stifle Democratic-Republican criticism of the Federalists.Â Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees.

A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence.

Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

Bailouts of the failing Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are not only unwarranted and unwise – but the existence of both these quasi-government/private organizations is unconstitutional from the very beginning.

When looking at the constitutionality of government programs, it’s not necessary to be a law student, or an “expert” of any kind.Â The founding fathers wrote the Constitution in plain English – so that ordinary people would be able to understand the law…that governs the government.

What will it take to get our troops out of Iraq?Â Â The roughly 70 percent of Americans who are firmly against the war often ask this question.Â Those in power are reluctant to give conditions, but when they do and those conditions are met, the goal post is quietly moved.

Voters were promised, passionately and vehemently, that the new Congress would bring our troops home.Â Many were explicitly elected in 2006 under that banner.Â But our troops are still overseas, funding has been increased even beyond the administration’s wish list, and troop withdrawal has been negotiated away.